Better Metabolism- Higher Heart Rate And. Lower Oxygen Saturation (spO2)?

[firebreather]

So this might be a stupid question but how are ya'll able to consistently keep your Sp02 low?

 

[ecstatichamster]

I don't know. I do feel pretty hyperthyroid (pleasantly so).

 

[yerrag]

thanks and yes, puls is pretty low. it was even lower before peating. I trained like an athlete in my youth(tennis) and now i teach it and so i play a lot and also do physical work. i dont care about the puls too much because through all the years of training(i am 40 now) i bet my heart is not the typical one, so i don´t take the ideal heartrate suggestions from peat too serious. another reason that i dont try to increase it is because i found kind of a sweetspot, and i am happy that it stayed like this for almost 2 years now.

You must have played long sets the type that doesn't involve too much aces but long extended plays. Those are very exhausting. I never got to that level and I get beat pretty quickly as my level of play isn't refined and I wish I can go back into it and get better. Tennis actually is a good game for middle-aged as well as people into their sixties, as the pace isn't forced on you, unlike badminton. When I stopped running because the repetitive motion causes me to have knee pain, I find tennis to be a substitute as you get many breaks between play. I liken play to sprints where there are short bursts of power running to the ball.

I agree with you that not getting into the 80s pulse isn't a big letdown. Still, I imagine like me, you would also wonder whether there's a way to gauge your metabolism and where you need to go if can still stand to be improved. A high heart rate doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing when the heart isn't efficient at pumping blood.

I thought about using the QTc value (the depolarization and repolarization rate of the heart) that can be obtained from an ECG, but that would be a limited view of it as it is centered around its relationship to hypothyroidism, but I'm pretty sure there's more to the ECG than just that. Unfortunately, those trained on interpreting ECG's are cardiologists trained under the dogmatic medical establishment. For example, I tried looking for some studies relating to oxygen saturation and the studies are focused on the oxygen transport part of it, and not on the tissue oxygenation end of it, and it tends to view the numbers from the standpoint of oxygen supply instead of oxygen usage, which is the metabolism end of it.

I now am starting to think that when Ray Peat felt really good seeing oxygen saturation at 89%, he must have been at a higher altitude to have hit that sweet spot. The lower oxygenation supply at a high altitude combined with a higher tissue oxygenation rate arising from the effect of higher CO2, made that number possible.

 

[yerrag]

So this might be a stupid question but how are ya'll able to consistently keep your Sp02 low?

I consider our spO2 levels high by Peat standards. What's your spO2 level?

 

[yerrag]

ate then exercised. 37C, 97oxsat, 90HR

still going great -

You're able to increase heartrate to 90 and see you oxygen saturation go lower to 97.

I was thinking if at all possible one of us can go to a high elevation (maybe @Blossom is already at a high elevation) and take readings. It's not possible for me, but I can breathe a carbogen breathing machine for an hour, and then see how the increased carbon dioxide would affect readings. I could set the CO2 percentage initially at 5%, then increase to 10%. I could probably go higher, but I'm not sure how risky that would be.

 

[nwo2012]

Thanks. If you are taking these, would you expect numbers to get better gradually over time?

Yes this is what I have been seeing. After breakfast and until sundown my pulse is most often 80-90 and I have that pleasant hyperthyroid feeling (euthyroid as RP sees it).

 

[Blossom]

You're able to increase heartrate to 90 and see you oxygen saturation go lower to 97.

I was thinking if at all possible one of us can go to a high elevation (maybe @Blossom is already at a high elevation) and take readings. It's not possible for me, but I can breathe a carbogen breathing machine for an hour, and then see how the increased carbon dioxide would affect readings. I could set the CO2 percentage initially at 5%, then increase to 10%. I could probably go higher, but I'm not sure how risky that would be.

I'm only at 700 feet above sea level.

 

[ecstatichamster]

I'm only at 700 feet above sea level.

You can stand on a chair.

LOL

 

[Blossom]

You can stand on a chair.

LOL

I'm only 5'2 so that probably wouldn't help.

 

[Ahanu]

Today while standing still:
95 oxy
85 puls
After a minute
95 oxy
80 puls

 

[ecstatichamster]

37C
98 ox sat
83HR

 

[ecstatichamster]

36.6c
84hr
97 oxsat

Ate awhile ago and had a nap

 

[yerrag]

I was thinking if at all possible one of us can go to a high elevation (maybe @Blossom is already at a high elevation) and take readings. It's not possible for me, but I can breathe a carbogen breathing machine for an hour, and then see how the increased carbon dioxide would affect readings. I could set the CO2 percentage initially at 5%, then increase to 10%. I could probably go higher, but I'm not sure how risky that would be.

I'm only at 700 feet above sea level.

After reading through some of Ray Peat's writings on high elevation, I realize the effect of high elevation has more to do with lower oxygen pressure in facilitating the release of oxygen from the blood to the tissues, and not at all on increased CO2 content. While higher CO2 content in the blood at low elevation will still effect better tissue oxygenation, something I read at on p. 119 of Mind and Tissue makes me want to try some thyroid, even if I'm not hypothyroid:

The changes Meerson's group has seen in high altitude therapy resemble the changes that occur during supplementation with thyroid and antioxidants. The lower concentration of oxygen in tissues at high elevation would increase the antioxidant reserves of the organism, making it more resistant to stress. Decreasing the use of dietary unsaturated fats similarly protects against oxidative stress. These changes, including thyroid supplementation, increase the proportion of useful oxygen consumption in relation to harmful oxidation of tissues, and increases the useful stores of tissue energy.

I'm thinking that you may propose other substances other than thyroid, and that's fine. I don't know how to say this, but I feel that the substance has to be something that will organically, for lack of a better word, improve the efficiency of the phosphorylative oxidative pathway rather than force more energy production. I feel thyroid and red light is on the efficiency side of it, while coffee and progesterone, to name a few, is more on the forcing more energy production side of it.

This distinction is more important to me, as I have to extract more efficiency out of my current level of tissue oxygenation, as increasing tissue oxygenation would increase my blood pressure. It may not be relevant to others, on this point.

 

[Blossom]

I'm thinking that you may propose other substances other than thyroid, and that's fine. I don't know how to say this, but I feel that the substance has to be something that will organically, for lack of a better word, improve the efficiency of the phosphorylative oxidative pathway rather than force more energy production. I feel thyroid and red light is on the efficiency side of it, while coffee and progesterone, to name a few, is more on the forcing more energy production side of it.

I sure won't discourage you! I'm on thyroid and find it very helpful.

 

[firebreather]

I consider our spO2 levels high by Peat standards. What's your spO2 level?

At the moment it's 95% but like most people it varies between 95% and 100%.

At the moment my pulse is also in the mid 60s

 

[tara]

I could set the CO2 percentage initially at 5%, then increase to 10%. I could probably go higher, but I'm not sure how risky that would be.

I'm not recommending for or against, but if you do try it, please be cautious. Start low, make sure to hold the mask in place with your hand, so that it falls off easily if you fall asleep or pass out, and remove it immediately if you start to feel off. Don't strap the mask on and fall asleep! Remember even 1% is a lot higher higher than normal atmospheric Co2, and levels less than 10% could have serious negative consequences in some circumstances, if continued for too long.

 

[tara]

Remember even 1% is a lot higher higher than normal atmospheric Co2, and levels less than 10% could have serious negative consequences in some circumstances, if continued for too long.

Wikipedia says lowest published lethal dose/lethal concentration for humans is 90 000ppm for 5 mins, which I think means 9%, right?
Which I think means that on some evidence and calculation someone has estimated that about 50% of people could be expected not survive 5 mins at that concentration. Maybe it's not exactly the correct number, but even if the real number is a bit higher, some people would likely be susceptible to harm at lower concentration.

 

[yerrag]

I'm not recommending for or against, but if you do try it, please be cautious. Start low, make sure to hold the mask in place with your hand, so that it falls off easily if you fall asleep or pass out, and remove it immediately if you start to feel off. Don't strap the mask on and fall asleep! Remember even 1% is a lot higher higher than normal atmospheric Co2, and levels less than 10% could have serious negative consequences in some circumstances, if continued for too long.

Thanks Tara. I've tried the 5% setting before for an hour. I was expecting my blood pressure to shoot up like the way it did using Buteyko, but it just stayed steady. I haven't followed up on that, and I wasn't checking my oxygen saturation then. And yes, it's good you reminded me to hold it instead of strapping it. I wasn't sure whether I strapped it or not. Come to think of it, it didn't come with a strap so I was holding it. But I wasn't conscious then that perhaps that was the reason it didn't come with a strap.

Wikipedia says lowest published lethal dose/lethal concentration for humans is 90 000ppm for 5 mins, which I think means 9%, right?
Which I think means that on some evidence and calculation someone has estimated that about 50% of people could be expected not survive 5 mins at that concentration. Maybe it's not exactly the correct number, but even if the real number is a bit higher, some people would likely be susceptible to harm at lower concentration.

I'll still work by what Wikepedia says, to be on the safe side. But I also will take Wikipedia data with a grain of salt though. While I find a preference myself for looking up Wikipedia, being that it describes health matters with less jargon, it's still dominated by gatekeepers from conventional medicine. I'll be extra cautious when I hit the 15% level, and have a companion nearby. If you don't her back from me, it's just that I may be busy with other things.

Oh sorry, I said 15% as I believe that would be equal to 90,000 ppm for carbon dioxide.

 

[tara]

Oh sorry, I said 15% as I believe that would be equal to 90,000 ppm for carbon dioxide.

How did you calculate that?
I wasn't completely sure what the standard way of calculating this was, but was guessing it was a straight proportion/concentration. So I did 90 000/ 1 000 000 = 0.09 = 9%.

WHat WIkipedia says is that 's the lowest published lLD50. There may be ortehr studies showing somewhat higher levels.

None-the-less, LD50 means half are expected to be dead at levels less than that. I'd suggest some caution at levels less than half of the LD 50 level.

 

[yerrag]

How did you calculate that?
I wasn't completely sure what the standard way of calculating this was, but was guessing it was a straight proportion/concentration. So I did 90 000/ 1 000 000 = 0.09 = 9%.

I got it mixed up. You're right. That's the right way you're doing the calculation. I did the wrong conversion. I was mixing moles and weight and got to my wrong figure.

WHat WIkipedia says is that 's the lowest published lLD50. There may be ortehr studies showing somewhat higher levels.

None-the-less, LD50 means half are expected to be dead at levels less than that. I'd suggest some caution at levels less than half of the LD 50 level.

Thanks. I'll stay within the upper limit of 9%, and keep a good eye and feel and not push my luck.